Comments about ‘Stuart Reid: Translations of religious tolerance in society’

"Nor should toleration translate into weakening the resolve or compromise
the effort to contend for the free exercise of religion against the forces
trying to rob religion and people of religious conscience from their full access
to the public square."

Well who is trying to do what? Organized
religion occupies a privileged and powerful position in American life - for one
thing its properties are not taxed and most government services are provided to
it free of charge. Is anyone trying to end that privilege? No.

Is
anyone trying to keep people from going to church or in other ways to
participate in their religion? No.

Is religion being restricted from
the "public square?" Today's public square is the internet and
organized religion is well represented there. So the answer here is again
no.

In return for all of this slack, what does some of organized
religion want? They want to interfere in the employer/employee relationship,
granting "religious" employers special privileges in their dealings with
their employees.

Also, religions are not accorded equal respect.
Some Native American religions require the use of peyote. This they are not
allowed to do. Freedom of religion?

Yes, Adams and Washington were founders, but they were not involved in the far
more rigorous process of drafting the constitution and codifying the
relationship between the freedoms of individual citizens and the roles,
responsibilities and conduct of their government.

Moreover, it
would be helpful if Sen. Reid could offer less hand-wringing and hyperbole (the
bit about Obama and "special sexual rights" is a beauty) and instead
offer some specifics as to exactly what freedoms he thinks he's losing,when
basic constitutional rights are applied uniformly to all citizens.

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking
ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the
Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious
organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

"George Washington
explained in his 1796 farewell address that: “Reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principles.”

"John Adams proclaimed: “It is religion
and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can
securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure
virtue.” He further stated: “Our Constitution was made only for a
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.”

Yet the current administration pits religion against
secular humanism. It requires anyone who would do business in the United States
to accept ITS secular doctrine of paying 100% of the costs to keep children from
being born. No person who worships God and God's doctrines would accept
that humanistic doctrine. It is abhorrent to those who respect God's
directive to multiply and replenish the earth.

No one is demanding
unlimited access to our Temples, or trying to eliminate those sacred
ordinances.

No one is trying to force us to change our doctrine.

What they are trying to do is keep us from imposing those doctrines from
being codified into law. If we allow one Church to do so, then forbidding our
Church to practice according to the dictates of our conscious may be next. We
do have some unpopular doctrines (all of which I unabashedly support and
believe).

If we want people to abide by our precepts, we must 1)
Teach and preach them with the Spirit and convince people they are correct
principles. 2) Live them ourselves in our hearts, thought and deed and not just
for show so our neighbors think we are righteous. 3)Teach and preach them with
the Spirit and convince people they are correct principles and finally 4) Teach
and preach them with the Spirit and convince people they are correct principles.

I certainly hope that Mr. Reid feels better now that he has rationalized his
feelings with an eloquent essay.

"President Obama has no
compunction issuing an executive order extending special sexual rights to some
while disrespecting religious rights of others."

It would also be
nice if Mr. Reid had the courage to simply state that he is talking about same
gender marriage. All President Obama and the Judiciary have done is attempt to
prevent others from imposing their religious beliefs on those that reject them.
There have been no religious liberties lost by allowing same sex marriage. You
may continue to feel that it is morally wrong without denying others the right
to practice it. You can go on living your religion, in this country anyway,
without denying the rights of others to reject your religious principles.

The last 40 years have proven that the church - name any one you want to
- has failed in doing their job, to teach the principles to live by the believe
are correct, and now wants the government to help them do that. Ironic,
isn't it. No one has lost their religious rights, they have only lost the
ability to deny others their rights.

Government has no "rights" to give to the people of this nation. The
Declaration of Independence clearly tells us that all "rights" came from
our Creator. Those who claim that government gives us rights are mistaken.

There is no war between religion and government. The battle is between
God and ungodliness. That battle started long before this earth was created and
will continued until every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus
Christ is the Savior, the Redeemer, and the Creator. He is the member of Deity
who bestowed "rights" on us.

No wonder those who oppose God
would tell us to disregard our Creator. They know that if they acknowledge a
Creator, they would have to acknowledge His creation, which includes them. They
assign to government the supreme role in their lives. They bow before the
government. They give government the right to tell us which freedoms we can
enjoy and which freedoms government will remove "for our own good".

Religion reminds us that God is our Creator, not government. Religion
reminds us that we control government and that government was created to serve
us, not to rule over us.

Bravo! Wonderful article. Our school children need to be taught the importance
of preserving Christian morals for the continued success of the nation. God
bless America? Only if we believe Him and not just believe in Him.

And just who decides what is moral or immoral? If you impose your morality on
others who do not share your belief are you not infringing on their freedom of
conscience? There are many Christian faiths which do not condemn homosexuality
and support the right of SSM - Unitarians, Disciples of Christ, Presbyterians,
most branches of Lutherans and Episcopalians, and some Methodists. In a
democracy there must be a broad consensus to legislate and enforce morality -
such as murder and theft. Prohibition failed in part due to the lack of majority
public support for it by the mid-1920s. With something as nebulous as same-sex
attraction, there is not nearly enough public consensus, even among Christian
faiths.

Yes, just who defines what is moral and what is immoral? Do churches? If they
do, they are in opposition to He who should be their leader. No Church can
define morality. No man can define morality. No government can define
morality. Only the author of morality can define morality. The word
"morality" comes from the Latin word "moralitas" which means
"proper behavior".

Who can tell us what "proper
behavior" is? Can we tell others what they must do? I don't think so.
Only Christ, our Creator, and the author of morality can tell us the rules by
which we MUST live IF we want to live with Him and with Our Father in Heaven
forever. It is His rules of life that define "morality". Wise men and
women will search His words, His life, and His teachings as given to us through
His appointed Prophets to know how to live.

Christian churches exist
to teach Christ's doctrine. None can deviate from His doctrine and still
claim to be a Christian church.

Seeking a church that agrees with
you is backwards, instead seek a church that agrees with Christ.

Joining the Battle of Quotations, Benjamin Franklin would say this to Mr. Reid:

“The faith you mention has doubtless its use in the world; I
do not desire to see it diminished, nor would I endeavour to lessen it in any
man. But I wish it were more productive of good works than I have generally seen
it: I mean real good works, works of kindness, charity, mercy, and publick
spirit."

"Nevertheless, calling for tolerance should never mean that those vigorously
contending for religious freedom — the freedom necessary to secure the
moral well-being of society, vital to the sustainability of the Republic —
should shrink and withdraw to demonstrate they are nice."

This
is a far as I got before I knew I was reading yet another diatribe that can be
summed up simply as "the law of the land should be based on OUR (LDS)
religious point of view and to do otherwise denies us our religious freedom and
the rest of you be darned."

@Mike Richards,

John
Adams also, in executing his constitutional duty as the country's chief
executive officer, signed the treaty that declared, "...the Government of
the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
religion," Your quote is his opinion. Mine represents his official position
as servant of the people of the United States of America.

I hope Sen. Reid takes his commitment to religious liberty truly to heart and
introduces a bill in the next legislative session to strike Section 30-1-13 from
the Utah Code. As nonceleb notes above, there are several churches in the state
whose clergy would love to officiate same sex marriages in accordance with the
dictates of their faiths and consciences, but they face felony charges if they
do so. Could there be a clearer case of government interference in the free
exercise of religion than that? The alleged, greatly attenuated religious
infringements on Hobby Lobby and wedding cake bakers pale in comparison.

John Adams also said "But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of
a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have
disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly
into your face and eyes."

Mr. Reid's diatribe seeks to
incite a swarm, but he misses a few key truths: first, people, not religions,
have inherent liberties. Second, President Obama's non-discrimination
executive order does not grant "special sexual rights," but instead
affirms the biblical principle that we should be known by our works, especially
in the workplace. Third, the boundaries of religious liberty are appropriately
drawn where one mans religious exercise affects the liberty of others. Mr. Reid
misreads religious liberty as a license to impose his will on the actions of
others who believe differently. That is not a call for freedom, but a bid to be
king.

The more you hear from those like the writer the more you realize that it is not
religons that are being persecuted but instead being the persecuor. Christ
would find no comfort or associate with those who have no tolerance or
forgiveness 7 times over. The loud backlash being heard accross the country are
from those Americans who love our country, and their religons and are saying
we've had enough. Practice and live your religon but "Don't Tread
on Me" or my neighbor!

Sal said: " Our school children need to be taught the importance of
preserving Christian morals for the continued success of the nation. God bless
America?

God bless America? Is that a request? Is that a demand? Is
that a suggestion?

Do you honestly think that God is sitting around
picking out his favorites? Why would he do that? Why would God have a favorite
country? And why would it be America out of all the countries? Because you have
the most money? Because he likes our National Anthem? It’s delusional
thinking!